TINAH/1

Macalister/1945, 249: `Two stones raised from the souterrain...on lands in the occupation of a man called Foley...who showed them to Windele.[1] Windele acquired them and removed them to Cork; they are now in the Royal Irish Academy's collection.

[1] Strictly speaking, he first found No. 1 [TINAH/1], and Windele, having seen it, suggested he should make a further search: he did so and found No. II [TINAH/2]'.

Macalister/1945, 249, cites an article by Brash in 1873 as the first publication of the stone.

Macalister/1945, 249--251, (using italics to denote the later letters): `The inscription is a palimpsest, but most of the older writing has been spalled away. It was chisel cut, in contrast to the later inscription, which is pocked. Brash had observed and been puzzled by the C at the beginning: Ferguson had noticed the N at the end: but it was left to Rhys to explain the true nature of these letters. He made Mac(orrbi) maq(qi) ...agni; and in Epigraphy (vol iii, pp. 8, 9) I made Maqi-N(abe) maq(qi) G...gni. We both agree on maq and gni. Having re-examined the stone many times, I would now delete the initial M: also the following A, though this is not impossible: the C is certain between N and M, but it is not Q. There is a vowel, probably I, following the C; I1 is under the M1, I2 is very faint, I3 is clear between the V1V2, but the two remaining notches are lost. I now delete the supposed N-scores under R123, and substitute hypothetical H-scores (there is space for about 10) spalled away between the V3 and the R3 (the R scores have been made after this spalling). Then my B, certain, and less certain, but probable, a second score beside it, making L, and an A preceding 2U1. The M of MAQ crosses 2U2: the first two scores of the following Q are absorbed by 1D, after which comes Q3, Q4 is absorbed by 2D1, and Q5 comes immediately after 2D2. On 2R1 there is a D, which both Rhys and I have taken for the first two scores of a second Q; after which the H surface is again spalled away, and nothing is left for a space which would hold about 20 scores (or 12 if we are to read MAQQI). The G shown in my first reading between the two N's at the end of VURUDDRANN must be deleted. The name ended BAGNI or TAGNI (the I being on the top of the stone now absorbed by the I of MAQI): the B of the first reading is represented by a rather straggling scratch, the less probable T by three notches in the edge of the spall, which may be the distal ends of the scores of the letter. Collecting these relics together we find CI[...]LA MAQ[Q?]I [..]BAGNI as the ultimate possible restoration'.

Legibility:

poorCISP: This inscription has been overwritten by TINAH/1/2 and is thus difficult to read.

Macalister/1945, 249: `most of the older writing has been spalled away'.

McManus/1991, 80: `The ANM formula...is relatively confined in distribution and characterized by late linguistic, palaeographical or orthographic features such as post-apocope forms...In this last sense ANM may be the only formula word to survive into manuscript Irish with a specific connection with Ogam in the phrase ainm n-oguim `an Ogam inscription''.

McManus/1991, 95, groups this inscription with those `in which endings which were dropped are gone from all names but retained in formula words (excluding ANM)'. He goes on to say that `the vocalization of fricatives before resonants can also be seen' in this inscription.

Palaeography:

Macalister/1945, 249--251, (using italics to denote the later letters): `The inscription is a palimpsest, but most of the older writing has been spalled away. It was chisel cut, in contrast to the later inscription, which is pocked. Brash had observed and been puzzled by the C at the beginning: Ferguson had noticed the N at the end: but it was left to Rhys to explain the true nature of these letters. He made Mac(orrbi) maq(qi) ...agni; and in Epigraphy (vol iii, pp. 8, 9) I made Maqi-N(abe) maq(qi) G...gni. We both agree on maq and gni. Having re-examined the stone many times, I would now delete the initial M: also the following A, though this is not impossible: the C is certain between N and M, but it is not Q. There is a vowel, probably I, following the C; I1 is under the M1, I2 is very faint, I3 is clear between the V1V2, but the two remaining notches are lost. I now delete the supposed N-scores under R123, and substitute hypothetical H-scores (there is space for about 10) spalled away between the V3 and the R3 (the R scores have been made after this spalling). Then my B, certain, and less certain, but probable, a second score beside it, making L, and an A preceding 2U1. The M of MAQ crosses 2U2: the first two scores of the following Q are absorbed by 1D, after which comes Q3, Q4 is absorbed by 2D1, and Q5 comes immediately after 2D2. On 2R1 there is a D, which both Rhys and I have taken for the first two scores of a second Q; after which the H surface is again spalled away, and nothing is left for a space which would hold about 20 scores (or 12 if we are to read MAQQI). The G shown in my first reading between the two N's at the end of VURUDDRANN must be deleted. The name ended BAGNI or TAGNI (the I being on the top of the stone now absorbed by the I of MAQI): the B of the first reading is represented by a rather straggling scratch, the less probable T by three notches in the edge of the spall, which may be the distal ends of the scores of the letter. Collecting these relics together we find CI[...]LA MAQ[Q?]I [..]BAGNI as the ultimate possible restoration. The last name of the later inscription is certainly DOLIGENN, not CULIGENN, as read by Brash. Between the G and the E of this name there is a space which would hold about five scores, which the scribe passed over, presumably to avoid a roughness in the surface'.

Legibility:

someCISP: The inscription appears legible despite being written over an earlier inscription.